From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adolf Belka To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: GnuPG Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 22:39:14 +0100 Message-ID: <8cfdfabe-2734-3ded-cde6-6aef9032744a@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6004586435885269350==" List-Id: --===============6004586435885269350== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Peter, On 27/03/2021 21:11, Peter M=C3=BCller wrote: > Hello Adolf, > hello development folks, >=20 > sorry for my tardy reply. No problems. I know you have been and are very busy people. >=20 >> Is IPFire using the 1.4 Branch because there is some historic requirement = for the older insecure keys. >=20 > (Assuming this was a question:) To my knowledge, we do not have key materia= l in operation that would not > be supported by GnuPG 2.x - the "classic" branch simply is more lightweight= than the 2.x branch. >=20 > The last time I looked at this, GnuPG 2.x required some flavour of the "pin= entry" helper for entering > passphrases, and won't compile without. Since there is no manual interactio= n on a firewall, "pinentry" > is useless, but I was unable to work out how to omit it in GnuPG 2.x . Thanks for the heads up on this. >=20 > Things could have been changed, meanwhile. Perhaps this is now possible, so= if you have some spare time > to look at this, go ahead. :-) I will give it a try. The worst that can happen is that I can't get it workin= g and we stay with the status quo which is working currently. >=20 > Thank you very much in advance for your efforts - and all your patches of t= he last weeks. >=20 I am glad to help where I can.I know I can't help you with the real core stuf= f, my capabilities aren't sufficient but I can generally help with providing = update patches on anything that I find has newer versions. Regards, Adolf > Thanks, and best regards, > Peter M=C3=BCller >=20 --===============6004586435885269350==--